Half-life, steady state, and accumulation worked through posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
Fasting requirement for oral semaglutide: food and large fluid volumes reduce absorption. The fasting window (30 minutes before and 30 minutes after) is designed to maximise absorption. Violating it measurably reduces exposure.
Bioavailability: oral semaglutide has low bioavailability (roughly 1%) due to peptide instability. That is why the oral dose (14 mg) is so much larger than the injectable dose. Comparing them by mass is meaningless.
Individual variation: people vary in how quickly they absorb, distribute, metabolise, and excrete these compounds. That variation is partly genetic and partly due to individual biology (gut motility, kidney and liver function). It explains why two people on the same dose have different response magnitudes.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
This follows post #65 rather than contradicting it.
Hepatic metabolism: the degree to which each compound is hepatically metabolised versus renally cleared is known but varies. Severe liver disease changes clearance.
post #69 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Accumulation at steady state: with a week-long half-life, steady-state concentration is reached around 4 to 5 half-lives (about 4 to 5 weeks). Before that, concentration is rising with each dose. The clinical implication: escalating before 4 weeks means escalating before steady state.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
Coming back to post #70, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Albumin binding: semaglutide binds albumin through a fatty side chain, which sequesters the free form and extends the half-life. Tirzepatide also has albumin binding (different mechanism) which extends its half-life compared to an unmodified peptide.
post #72 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Hepatic metabolism: the degree to which each compound is hepatically metabolised versus renally cleared is known but varies. Severe liver disease changes clearance.
Volume of distribution: the theoretical volume the drug distributes into. For albumin-binding compounds, volume is reduced compared to drugs that do not bind protein. That is relevant to understanding how much free drug is available.
Individual variation: people vary in how quickly they absorb, distribute, metabolise, and excrete these compounds. That variation is partly genetic and partly due to individual biology (gut motility, kidney and liver function). It explains why two people on the same dose have different response magnitudes.
Half-life: semaglutide ≈ 165–184 hours (about a week). Tirzepatide ≈ 5 days. Liraglutide ≈ 13 hours. The half-life determines how much accumulation happens at steady state and how long it takes to clear after stopping.
post #76 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Accumulation at steady state: with a week-long half-life, steady-state concentration is reached around 4 to 5 half-lives (about 4 to 5 weeks). Before that, concentration is rising with each dose. The clinical implication: escalating before 4 weeks means escalating before steady state.
Worth separating two things that post #74 runs together.
Albumin binding: semaglutide binds albumin through a fatty side chain, which sequesters the free form and extends the half-life. Tirzepatide also has albumin binding (different mechanism) which extends its half-life compared to an unmodified peptide.
Picking up post #76: that is the part I would want checked first.
Bioavailability: oral semaglutide has low bioavailability (roughly 1%) due to peptide instability. That is why the oral dose (14 mg) is so much larger than the injectable dose. Comparing them by mass is meaningless.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
SNAC (the oral bioavailability enhancer): sodium N-(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl]amino) caprylate transiently raises gastric pH and promotes absorption. Without it, oral bioavailability is too low for clinical use. With it, bioavailability is still variable between people.
Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.
Individual variation: people vary in how quickly they absorb, distribute, metabolise, and excrete these compounds. That variation is partly genetic and partly due to individual biology (gut motility, kidney and liver function). It explains why two people on the same dose have different response magnitudes.
Coming back to post #83, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Albumin binding: semaglutide binds albumin through a fatty side chain, which sequesters the free form and extends the half-life. Tirzepatide also has albumin binding (different mechanism) which extends its half-life compared to an unmodified peptide.
Picking up post #83: that is the part I would want checked first.
Accumulation at steady state: with a week-long half-life, steady-state concentration is reached around 4 to 5 half-lives (about 4 to 5 weeks). Before that, concentration is rising with each dose. The clinical implication: escalating before 4 weeks means escalating before steady state.
SNAC (the oral bioavailability enhancer): sodium N-(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl]amino) caprylate transiently raises gastric pH and promotes absorption. Without it, oral bioavailability is too low for clinical use. With it, bioavailability is still variable between people.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
Two things before anyone answers the substance.
First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.